My company has been laying off every year for the past 3 years. We have been told that there will most likely be layoffs next year as well. These are full time employees already with medical care. It is just what it is, companies have been looking at cutting expenses as much as they can.

I'm sure lots of companies can point the blame at Obama but if they can cut 1,000 workers or more, it means there there is something already wrong with their company. It isn't Obama causing this.

The parties are the same. The big snow job the media perpetuates is that the different rhetoric during campaigns matters. Their practice shows differently. Too pro business and you have blind corporatism, too pro regulation and you have other problems. THey both try to tightrope walk on the center and that does not move the needle very far.

There is no easy answer for these things and neither party has enough pain to make a real change.

We have a Conservative government that is trying to cut everything they can find to cut and as we head at full steam for a triple dip recession here there's a lot of debate that cutting demand is actually proving counter productive when trying to pay down debt.

I don't see how voting for Obama is a vote for economic doom like a lot of people love to say. Layoffs are not determined by the political system but by the profitability of the company. Attributing success based solely on the good decisions and merits of a company, yet attributing its failure because of the government? You can't have it both ways.

Health care cost have been increasing every year regardless of who is president. The "increase" people and the GOP claim for obama care. How does that compare to the already projected increases (key number they like to leave out)

CBO even pointed out the return on investment for tax cuts for the wealthy and mega rich companies is the most worthless as we get back MAYBE 50 cents on the dollar.

What I read in that list is a lot of excuse to do what they were planning on doing any how like shipping jobs to china.

CBO even pointed out the return on investment for tax cuts for the wealthy and mega rich companies is the most worthless as we get back MAYBE 50 cents on the dollar.

What I read in that list is a lot of excuse to do what they were planning on doing any how like shipping jobs to china.

This is just excuses to how they have been acting for a long time.

Click to expand...

I'd love to see a link on the CBO. If that is true for every tax dollar cut from the federal revenues, you get only 50 cents back into the economy, its a very interesting way to frame a tax cut discussion.

I'm not sure why the medical device tax was included or applied in that manner (to gross sales). Some of these cuts would most likely have happened regardless of changes in national leadership. It's difficult to separate out the noise in this regard. I mentioned in another thread that the small business equation isn't that simple. Assuming we're talking about a sole proprietor or single owner LLC, the tax would be paid based on individual tax rates. The bracket based increase in tax rates would only take place on profits above $250k after operating expenses are deducted, and only on the amount in excess of $250k. It's not that this isn't an increased cost, but it's reported on in a slightly biased manner. The exception might be medical devices. I'm still searching for further details on that part.

I'd love to see a link on the CBO. If that is true for every tax dollar cut from the federal revenues, you get only 50 cents back into the economy, its a very interesting way to frame a tax cut discussion.

Click to expand...

have to look for it. It was from NPR this morning when I was listening to the radio but really it is pretty simple logic.

The more you make the less likely you will spend each additional dollar you make. It is not like you need it. Chances are it will be put into savings.

For example I liven pretty well as a single guy (I make between 50-60k a year) and my spending habits are with in the range of my income and I still save a fair amount.

Now if you increase my pay by say $1000 a year (basically a little less than 20 a week) guess what chances are I will save most of that money because it is beyond what I need. Now lets do assume I spend the savings I might spend 70% of that extra $1000 a year and the only reason that happens is I would be building up savings for some new toy I am saving for just that much faster. So you get back 70 cents on the dollar for that extra money. Most of it would be just moved into my bank account building up savings.

I'd love to see a link on the CBO. If that is true for every tax dollar cut from the federal revenues, you get only 50 cents back into the economy, its a very interesting way to frame a tax cut discussion.

Click to expand...

If you tax a billionaire and take money that is held passively ("safe" investments) and not used within the economy, and then spend it on things like welfare (or infrastructure) which have a very high economic rate of return (something like 1.7), the economy will grow. It must.

Quote

The most widely cited studies include those by the Congressional Budget Office, economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi, and economists James Feyrer and Bruce Sacerdote. These reports find a range of values for each program. In these studies, the “bang for the buck” value—what economists call the “multiplier,” or how many dollars of economic activity is fueled by one dollar spent—for overall social protection ranges from 0.8 to 2.31. Separately, Blinder and Zandi report a value of 1.61 for unemployment insurance and 1.74 for food stamps.[2]

Research by Urban Institute economist Wayne Vroman estimates that one dollar spent on unemployment insurance fuels between 1.7 and 2.1 dollars of activity in the overall economy.[3] According to these studies, the value for a dollar of spending on infrastructure ranges from 1 to 2.5, while the value for aid to state and local governments ranges from 0.7 to 1.8.

The analyses value middle-class tax cuts, such as the Making Work Pay tax credit that gave tax credits of $400 ($800 for couples), as generating between 0.6 and 1.5 dollars of additional economic activity; the value of extending the Alternative Minimum Tax patch for high-income earners for an additional year ranges from 0.2 to 0.6 dollars of additional activity. And the analyses value the extension of the housing tax credit for first-time homebuyers, providing credits up to $8000, in the Recovery Act from 0.3 to 0.9.[4]American Progress

The tax we pay or don't pay is small compared with the inflation tax. If you look around, the price of everything goes up up and up. And there's always an excuse for it. The real explanation is simply currency devaluation as Fed prints dollars by the billions with the stroke of a pen. Wealth gets transferred from the middle class to the rich, and it's been happening at an accelerated pace since about 2008.

Hey tshrimp... do me a favor and tell the maroons in DC that are running the GOP what you just said. We DID vote for higher taxes.

Click to expand...

Some people's myopic view is that lower taxes will fix everything, except you'll have a non-functional govt, falling down infrastructure, no military, and no social safety nets (screw'm). Instead of demanding efficient, effective government, they think it's better to do away with it...this is advancement of our society? (Btw, I support large military cuts).

If you tax a billionaire and take money that is held passively ("safe" investments) and not used within the economy, and then spend it on things like welfare (or infrastructure) which have a very high economic rate of return (something like 1.7), the economy will grow. It must.

Click to expand...

The consequence is that the billionaire might take his money overseas, out of the economy.

Some people's myopic view is that lower taxes will fix everything, except you'll have a non-functional govt, falling down infrastructure, no military, and no social safety nets (screw'm). Instead of demanding efficient, effective government, they think it's better to do away with it...this is advancement of our society? (Btw, I support large military cuts).

Click to expand...

I personally think human advancement is us moving away from corrupt, State controlled power structures.

The consequence is that the billionaire might take his money overseas, out of the economy.

Click to expand...

This is based on the Laffer Curve, which in a nutshell suggests that when taxes reach a certain point, money begins to leave the economy. Reverting back to the marginal tax rates before the Bush tax cuts won't trigger this result.

I'd love to see a link on the CBO. If that is true for every tax dollar cut from the federal revenues, you get only 50 cents back into the economy, its a very interesting way to frame a tax cut discussion.

This guy is absolutely spot on, and that is saying a lot when he comes from being a GWB speech writer.

And when you look at it, and look back at it, the numbers would make sense, especially in the viewership numbers at Fox compared to all of the other channels, conservative talk radio versus progressive radio and NPR.

Now that something like this has been said by someone prominent, how many denial rebuttals will be said now? there will be infinitely many because if they did say the truth, they'd lose those viewers plus the advertising dollars they would be getting, and t heir salaries gone.

This... is capitalism at its best, and Joe said it: he's a capitalist and can understand why they are doing it, but it doesn't take away the fact that their lies are costing people their livelihoods just so they can keep theirs own.

have to look for it. It was from NPR this morning when I was listening to the radio but really it is pretty simple logic.

The more you make the less likely you will spend each additional dollar you make. It is not like you need it. Chances are it will be put into savings.

For example I liven pretty well as a single guy (I make between 50-60k a year) and my spending habits are with in the range of my income and I still save a fair amount.

Now if you increase my pay by say $1000 a year (basically a little less than 20 a week) guess what chances are I will save most of that money because it is beyond what I need. Now lets do assume I spend the savings I might spend 70% of that extra $1000 a year and the only reason that happens is I would be building up savings for some new toy I am saving for just that much faster. So you get back 70 cents on the dollar for that extra money. Most of it would be just moved into my bank account building up savings.

Click to expand...

This analysis ignores one vital point. The savings that the rich don't get taxed on and don't spend is not sitting in a mattress. The rich want to earn a return on that money. What do they with it? They invest it in corporate bonds (which helps companies invest and grow), government bonds (which helps pay for government services), or in stocks (companies again) or real estate (infrastructure).

The goal though is to encourage the rich to invest is wisely in things that help society and not on just gambling. Every company ever invented started out as a startup that got financing from rich people. They put the money in so that an Apple, Google, Facebook, etc. can get the money they need to pay their employees, invest in infrastructure, etc. before they are profitable.

The problem is that the rich are scared for many reasons so they tend to invest it in passive income like bonds instead of investments that stimulate growth.

The trick is for government policy to encourage this. The stalemate that exists in politics and the mess that is the tax code and the deficits is what are keeping this cash on the sidelines.

I would much rather have this extra money invested in the US as opposed to given through transfer payments to consumers so they can buy more goods made in China.

The problem is that the rich are scared for many reasons so they tend to invest it in passive income like bonds instead of investments that stimulate growth.

The trick is for government policy to encourage this. The stalemate that exists in politics and the mess that is the tax code and the deficits is what are keeping this cash on the sidelines.

Click to expand...

No. No. No. The problem isn't that the rich are scared, but that "safe" investments minus taxes yield plenty of income. What we need are government policies that encourage riskier, US investments in high-growth areas. The second a billionaire sees no need to grow his/her income, is the second every penny of that person's investments shifts to non-growth investments. That is bad for the economy.

Taxes are a small, small factor in the investment strategy, but an important factor. They can shift an otherwise cautious portfolio to one that is more growth oriented.

Higher taxes yield job growth, economic activity and overall economic improvement for many reasons, none of which are simple.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.